Cundy was asked to pay the linen manufacturers Lindsay and Co for 250 dozen cambric handkerchiefs which he had acquired from a crook who had acquired them from Lindsay by pretending to be the respectable business firm of Blenkiron.
Held: A dealer who was induced by a rogue acting through the post, A, to believe that he is dealing with B, with whom he is willing to deal, makes no contract at all and unless it was a sale in market overt, he can recover the goods he has parted with from an innocent purchaser. Lord Cairns said: ‘how is it possible to imagine that in that state of things any contract could have arisen between the Respondents and Blenkarn, the dishonest man? Of him they knew nothing, and of him they never thought. With him they never intended to deal. Their minds never, even for an instant of time, rested upon him, and as between him and them there was no consensus of mind which could lead to any arrangement or any contract whatever.’
Lord Hatherly said: ‘from beginning to end the Respondents believed they were dealing with Blenkiron and Co., they made out their invoices to Blenkiron and Co., they supposed they sold to Blenkiron and Co., they never sold in any way to Alfred Blenkarn; and therefore Alfred Blenkarn cannot, by so obtaining the goods, have by possibility made a good title to a purchaser, as against the owners of the goods, who had never in any shape or way parted with the property nor with anything more than the possession of it.’
Lord Penzance said: ‘In the present case Alfred Blenkarn pretended that he was, and acted as if he was, Blenkiron and Co. with whom alone the vendors meant to deal. No contract was ever intended with him, and the contract which was intended failed for want of another party to it.’
Lord Cairns LC, Lord Hatherley and Lord Penzance
(1878) 3 App Cas 459
England and Wales
Citing:
Followed – Hardman v Booth CEC 1863
Gandell carried on business in two capacities: as clerk to Gandell and Co, of which his father was sole proprietor. He had no authority to contract. He was in partnership with Todd, as Gandell and Todd. He purported to conclude a contract to . .
Cited by:
Applied – Norman Hudson v Shogun Finance Ltd CA 28-Jun-2001
A rogue had purchased a car, using a false name to obtain finance. He had then sold it to the defendant. The finance company claimed the car back.
Held: The dealer had not taken all the steps he might have done to check the identity of the . .
Overruled – Shogun Finance Limited v Hudson HL 19-Nov-2003
Thief acquired no title and could not sell
A purchaser used a stolen driving licence to obtain credit for and purchase a car. He then purported to sell it to the respondent, and then disappeared. The finance company sought return of the car.
Held: (Lords Nicholls and Millett . .
Cited – Lake v Simmons HL 1927
A jeweller claimed on a policy of insurance. One Ellison had induced him, in face-to-face dealings, to part with possession of two necklaces by pretending she was the wife of a local gentleman called Van der Borgh, with whom she was living, and that . .
Cited – King’s Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge Merrett and Co Ltd CA 1879
A crook ordered some brass rivet wire from a metal manufacturer. On his stationery he represented falsely that he was in business in a big way, running a large factory and having several depots and agencies. The manufacturer supplied the goods but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.188408
